Andrew Yang Says There Is No Guarantee Impeaching Trump Will Be Successful

[Sherman A1]

Tech entrepreneur, author and Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang says the impeachment inquiry being conducted by House Democrats "is the right way to go."

But he also cautions that those who support impeachment should be realistic about the chances of a GOP-controlled Senate voting to remove President Trump from office.

"I think impeachment is the right way to go, but I do not think that we should have any illusions that it's necessarily going to be successful," Yang told NPR's Noel King on Saturday as part of NPR's Off Script series of interviews with 2020 presidential candidates.

"When we are talking about Donald Trump, we are losing to Donald Trump, even if it's in the context of talking about impeaching him," Yang said.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/19/770960883/andrew-yang-warns-there-is-no-guarantee-impeaching-trump-will-be-successful

[beachbumbob]

1. what happens in the Senate is of ZERO concern as far as I see it, its the House's

responsibility to do THEIR job that matters.

And if the leadership does not follow thru, we will be massacred in Nov 2020 from the all those who will feel 2018 landslide was a wasted effort and will stay home.

Let McConnel obstruct, delay or hold a sham trial. NOT OUR PROBLEM. If and WHEN he does, we will make the GOP and trump pay in Nov 2020

[Sherman A1]

2. He doesn't disagree with the impeachment, but is concerned

that it takes all the oxygen out of the room.


Remember that our Infotainment Media is pretty limited in their attention span.

[beachbumbob]

4. thats the media, we heard all the same of democrats running out of energy in the lead up to Nov 2018

I know ZERO democrats who are not MORE enthused today than they were in 2018.

[brush]

5. An impeached president with all his egregious crimes exposed is a vote magnet?

Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2019, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I think not. The House Dems are on the right track. If the Senate repugs fail to convict, that's on them and trump.

He will still be an impeached president, not the best thing hanging over his head during a campaign. In fact, there hasn't been an impeached president running for re-election in our history. Andrew Johnson was impeached but survive by one vote in his Senate trial. He did not run for re-election in 1868 as he was very unpopular and likely would've been trounced. Bill Clinton was in his second term when impeached so he didn't stand for re-election and Nixon resigned under impeachment pressure during his second term so if trump runs for re-election it will be unprecedented.

And IMO, he will be "unpresidented" if he runs.

[brush]

3. And water is wet. Most know this. We must impeach though. If the repugs...

in the Senate choose not to convict trump after all the blatant, undeniable evidence is presented, that's on them and him.

I don't believe that being impeached with much evidence presented of egregious violations of the emoluments clause and other crimes is a positive, vote-getting scenario for a presidential candidate.

Yang might be better off staying silent on this and the Gabbard matter. It's come out that he is close friends with Gabbard. Not a good revelation IMO.

[ritapria]

6. The Democratic Party has no choice but to Impeach Trump

Trump will not be removed from Office ….. Trump has committed crime after crime ….Failure to act would make House Democrats almost complicit in the Atrocity that is the Trump Administration ...Sometimes you have to screw the politics and do the right thing …….Let History be the Judge

[abqtommy]

7. Meh

[W_HAMILTON]

8. Less talky to reporters, more talky to your accountant -- show us your tax returns.

[redqueen]

10. "Talky"

Care to explain the reason you said that?

[W_HAMILTON]

12. I was talking down to a candidate spouting pro-Trump talking points.

He should spend less time on his press tour giving cover to Russian-backed candidates and more time in his accountant's office getting his tax returns publicly published like virtually all of the remaining candidates have already done (except Gabbard, cough cough, and Castro).

[redqueen]

13. Talking down in a very specific way. Why that manner? Why?

I seriously want an explanation or else I will have a definite idea in mind and I will assume it is correct. If you could kindly point me to another post where you've talked down to another candidate in the same way I'll assume my inference is incorrect. Otherwise...

Also, what do you mean 'spend less time on his press tour' - how many times do you think he's mentioned this Hillary vs. Tulsi circus?

[W_HAMILTON]

14. I just gave you your answer.

Feel free to search my post history for whatever it is you are looking for.

This isn't the first time that Yang has taken the anti-Democratic stance on an issue. From downplaying the importance of impeaching this corrupt and criminal president to stirring up unfounded conspiracy theories about the DNC """rigging""" his campaign because he claimed his mic was getting turned off. I view him as yet another one of the disruptor candidates, although he is apparently better at hiding it than some. When I went looking yesterday to see if another Democratic disruptor candidate had released her tax returns (Gabbard) and found out that she hadn't, I decided to look at the other remaining candidates and see if they had released theirs. Yang had not. Given that he is the only candidate that will make the next debate that has not publicly released years worth of tax returns, he should get called out for it. I -- and I'm guessing many others -- didn't even know he hadn't already done this.

[redqueen]

16. Did he say the DNC rigged anything with respect to the mic incident?

That was not the DNC that was the venue / news org hosting the debate. If he blamed the DNC I'd be interested to know it.

He also didn't downplay the importance of impeaching. He simply said he didn't think we'd have the votes.

As for the reason I was so curious to know why you used that particular wording, I was overly confrontational and I apologize for that. I've spent a lot of time discussing politics on more open forums.

However I did want to share the reason for being suspicious of that particular pattern of altered words.

http://blog.angryasianman.com/2008/03/no-tickee-no-laundry-no-reappointment.html

[W_HAMILTON]

17. He was pushing the """rigged""" nonsense.

Was the process """rigged""" when, during the last debate, Booker was repeatedly heard in the background (because his mic wasn't turned on) trying to comment on the line of questioning about Joe Biden's son that he felt was unfair? Was the process """rigged""" when Tom Steyer, who has donated more to Democrats than even boogeyman George Soros, qualified for even fewer debates than Gabbard? After we saw where it got us in 2016, anyone pushing this whole """rigged""" nonsense this time is being irresponsible -- purposefully so, in my opinion.

And I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think that Republicans will do the right thing for once in their lives and vote to impeach/remove their corrupt and criminal leader. But that is not up to us -- they will have to answer for the vote they cast. Like Nancy Pelosi said back during the government shutdown, just because the Republicans don't want to carry out their constitutional responsibilities does not mean that we Democrats should not. Republicans be damned -- it is up to us to hold this president accountable for his lawless actions.

And I couldn't care less about Yang's ethnic background. That "less talk-y, more <insert something>-y" has been a line that has been used to dismissively comment on someone incessantly talking about something when they should instead be doing something else. You can Google it ( "less talky more" ). It was not meant to be racist.

[redqueen]

18. I don't think he ever said or implied anything was rigged.

He did say it happened, and it did. To him, Booker, Williamson - candidates the moderators apparently decided didn't need to be heard from. It's not a good look.

Glad to hear the "talky" line is used in reference to other candidates, appreciate the background.

[W_HAMILTON]

20. He did.

Right after one of the debates, maybe the very first one, I can't remember now, he went straight from the debate stage to talk about how his mic was being turned off so that he couldn't comment like the other candidates. Whichever media outlet was hosting the event denied his accusation. It is reckless to make such claims, especially after the Republicans and Russians basically promoted the same sort of """rigged""" narrative that cost us a Democratic presidency last go around.

In the last debate, Steyer -- once again, one of the biggest Democratic donors of all time -- had the least speaking time. Was the DNC or CNN/NYT """rigging""" the debate against him? Of course not. It's just shameful to promote such nonsense in the wake of everything that happened in 2016.

[redqueen]

24. No, you're misrepresenting his words. He was pressured by his own supporters about not speaking up

Other candidates interrupt, speak over, etc. His supporters said he should do the same.

He said his mic was cut (it was) and that's it. Nothing about being rigged.

Whch, again, it was.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/yang-mic-muted-debate-msnbc/

[W_HAMILTON]

25. Your link just proves my point.

And, no, his mic was not cut -- NBC denied that claim, as your link points out. Otherwise, your link is just a page full of Twitter folks basically calling it all a conspiracy, which, yes, most certainly furthers that ignorant """rigging""" narrative.

Some have pointed out that in debates, mics are often set so that they only pick up a candidate's voice when they speak loudly, so that their whispered comments to other candidates, their breathing, etc. aren't picked up for all to hear. Think that could have been a reason why he and Williamson -- both candidates unfamiliar to a debate stage like that -- might have had what they perceived to be problems with their mics """being cut""" whereas more experienced candidates (and loudmouths) like Gillibrand and de Blasio did not have the same problem? But what do they do? Jump straight to the """rigging""" nonsense.

[Sapient Donkey]

29. I think a lot of the MSNBC suspicions stems from the fact that they have excluded Yang

from many polling graphics and discussions in which other candidates with lower polling numbers and supporters were included. I initially thought it was just overzealous Yang supporters basically making stuff up, but a little bit of research showed that there might be some validity to those claims. It seems that MSNBC doesn't, or at least wasn't, taking Yang as a serious candidate despite him performing better than many of the other candidates. It's my impression that the main complaint wasn't so much rigging, but rather that they were not giving him the same level serious treatment as other candidates.

[Devil Child]

26. Reminds me of the old "no ticky no washy" slur n/t

[redqueen]

27. Yep, immediately made me think of that as well. nt

[Kahuna7]

9. Democrats should hammer the repubs over their failure to convict..

an obviously corrupt person. They should use this against the repubs in the upcoming elections. The republicans already know what's coming.

[redqueen]

11. And he's right of course. It shouldn't be ignored, but

it should also not take up too much time in debates or interviews with candidates.

We need to be getting votes, not arguing over impeachment. Most Americans support it, it's (finally) happening - let our candidates focus on their plans.

[Turin_C3PO]

28. I think focusing on Trump's crimes and impeachment

is a vote getter.

[nitpicker]

15. +1

IMO, he's being a realist.

Even the Syrian situation is not enough for the Senate repugs to propel him from office.

No matter what Abramson wet-dreams.

[Sherman A1]

22. +1

Yup

[TreasonousBastard]

19. There is no guarantee I'll wake up tomorrow morning, but...

I'm giving it my best shot.

[dalton99a]

21. Correction: There is no guarantee for CONVICTION in the Senate

[Sherman A1]

23. There is no correction needed

his statement was exceptionally clear on the subject.

[Blue_Tires]

30. There's no guarantee that any worthwhile endeavor will be successful

[redqueen]

31. Yep - which he said it is ths right way to go.

He's just sharing what many consider a realistic outcome, and pointing out that spending time talking about Trump takes away from time talking about the problems we're facing and how our candidates propose to address them.